Iceland was hit hard by the financial crisis in 2008, especially by the spill-over effects of its banking failure when all of its three major banks collapsed. This article examines the Icelandic regulatory response to the crisis. The Icelandic case is special as the banks were not only too big to fail but also too big to rescue. Thus, legislation dealt with the failure of the banks and the aftermath of the crisis. First, the most important legislation was the Emergency Act that provided the Financial Supervisory Authority (FME) with emergency authority over banks in danger of becoming insolvent. The role of banks is integral to any economy. In order to ensure normal banking services and the safety of deposits in Iceland, three new banks fully owned by the Icelandic government were established on the basis of the Emergency Act. The most controversial provision of the Emergency Act granted depositors' claims priority over other unsecured claims in the winding up of the collapsed banks. Now the EFTA Surveillance Authority has concluded that this did not constitute a breach of the EEA Agreement. The Emergency Act made necessary amendments to the Act on Financial Undertakings concerning the reorganisation and winding up of financial undertakings. Second, a Special Investigation Commission was established by law. To enable a search for the truth, the legislation was far-reaching. The primary role of the Commission was to seek the truth. The report of the Commission discloses information that otherwise would not have been disclosed because of bank secrecy laws and sheds a unique light on the practices of the banks. Third, it was considered important that the law would be enforced by all necessary means. Thus, the temporary position of Special Prosecutor was established by law. Fourth, cross-border banking in the EU/EEA is examined in the light of the so-called Icesave dispute between Iceland on the one hand and the UK and the Netherlands on the other. It sheds a light on some of the major flaws of cross-border banking in the EU/EEA already known and criticised long before the crisis. When the Icelandic banks collapsed, the government of Iceland declared that all deposits in domestic banks and branches were guaranteed but not those in foreign branches. This gave rise to the question of whether Iceland could be held liable on the basis of the EU Deposit Guarantee Directive or because of discrimination of depositors based on nationality. In any case, the financial crisis has shown that there is a gap between law and reality. The conclusion of this article is that it is questionable whether the potential economic benefits of full integration in the field of cross-border banking outweigh the dangers and risks that come with it. If not, the price of full integration may be too high.

The purpose of this article, and its companion article, is to examine the implications of the new European Securities and Markets Authority, established in January 2011.

In the wake of the financial crisis, the case for institutional reform and for conferring regulatory and supervisory powers on a central EU authority became compelling. But any design for institutional reform of EU financial market regulation and supervision would have struggled to deliver an optimum model, given the necessity for compromise. The central difficulty is one of nuance. Where on the spectrum from national powers to EU powers, and with respect to regulation and supervision, should any new body's powers be placed if optimum outcomes are to be achieved? The question is further complicated by the different dynamics and risks of centralising rule-making and of centralising supervision/enforcement, even if there is considerable symbiosis between these different activities.

This article considers ESMA's rule-making powers; it is accompanied by a companion piece on ESMA's supervisory powers. It examines the considerable powers which ESMA has been granted in the rule-making sphere and argues that ESMA is likely to lead to significant intensification of the EU rule-book for financial markets. While a uniform rule-book carries risks, there are countervailing benefits. There are also promising signs that ESMA may become an effective rule-maker and may prove an effective mechanism for managing the risks of the intensifying rulebook. But the institutional design model is flawed. Treaty restrictions have led to a troublesome compromise in terms of ESMA's design, particularly with respect to Commission control and ESMA independence. Overall, ESMA's design is under-ambitious with respect to rule-making.

By contrast, as the companion piece argues, the extent of ESMA's supervisory powers, real and potential, may have pushed ESMA too high up the spectrum towards EU powers. Local supervision of the EU rule-book represents an important safety valve for the EU financial market, and should not be obstructed by over-centralisation. Once supervision was placed on the reform agenda, however, it was always going to be a challenge to draw the dividing line between ESMA's powers and those of national competent authorities. The line may, however, have been drawn too far on the side of operational centralisation.

In the wake of the financial crisis considerable momentum has built up behind proposals to extend central counterparty (CCP) clearing in the over-the-counter derivatives markets. However, implementation is proving complex. This paper argues that one cause of this complexity is that the public sector is seeking to incorporate into legislation (and require the wider use of) a privately owned and operated risk management mechanism. As a matter of law, the paper argues that CCP clearing can be understood as a market-generated ‘legal device’; in other words, one designed to support the markets by means of the interaction of various private law techniques. Following this analysis through, the paper highlights the benefits and drawbacks which derive from the legal techniques underlying CCP clearing (standardisation of contracts, asset-backing, netting and so on) and argues that these qualities are inherent to the device. It concludes that the inherent capacity of CCP clearing gives rise to a qualitatively different set of challenges for policymakers to those arising from technical implementation and it explains that both types of problem need to be addressed if the CCP prescription is to be effective.

The reform of the Transparency Directive is presently on the political agenda, with one of the key questions focusing on the level of harmonisation: should the current minimum harmonisation be retained or is a move towards full harmonisation advisable? After confirming legal competence for the full harmonisation of European capital markets law, this article weighs the pros and cons of full harmonisation in the case of ownership disclosure rules. The ability to overcome the costly legal fragmentation of the current regulatory regime for notification of major shareholdings throughout Europe is revealed as the greatest benefit of full harmonisation. As full harmonisation not only reduces compliance costs but also boosts investor confidence, all market participants stand to benefit. Despite this, full harmonisation also carries certain costs as it inhibits regulatory competition, increases complexity in implementing EU law in national legal systems and carries the danger of a petrification effect. The article reveals that these cost factors are not sufficient to undermine the case for full harmonisation for financial instruments requiring notification, as well as for thresholds, timeframes and notification formats. It goes on to show that legal regimes can retain their adaptive efficiency by allowing them to conduct temporary legislative experiments. However, the article refrains from generalising this finding, encouraging a targeted full harmonisation approach for the Transparency Directive.

Soon we can expect a new type of company: the European Private Company (Societas Privata Europaea – SPE) aimed at small and medium-sized enterprises in the EU. In this article, we analyse how creditors of future SPEs will be protected. In the first part, we identify on a general level how creditors can be protected. Then we turn to the tools used in the different draft versions of an SPE statute (Commission Draft, EP Draft and Presidency Compromise). As these do not cover all aspects of creditor protection, the next part examines how these gaps ought to be filled. Subsequently, we discuss whether, from a normative perspective, creditor protection in the EU should be further harmonised. Overall, we conclude that what emerges is a mixed picture between various levels of European and national rules. This may not be ideal but it may be the price worth paying in order to reach political agreement on SPE law.